Sack Sagarika Ghose Sardesai

Dan Rather, an internationally acclaimed journalist, was the first to break the assassination of John F Kennedy. He also covered Watergate and many wars. In 2004 he ran a report about military records of George W Bush using documents which later turned out to be forged. Rather did the morally right thing, he quit CBS in 2006. His only fault was that he hadnâ€™t fact-checked the story and the documents, although there is still no concrete evidence that the documents were unreliable. That was probably a rare mistake from Rather in career spanning over five decades. What does it say about journalists in India who continue to not only hold on to their jobs but continue to sermonise the nation as if their character were soaked in the purest of waters?
We first had Barkha Dutt, the Radiagate hero, stringing along a lobbyist and indulging in power-brokering who continues to moralise the nation. We now have Vir Sanghvi, another Radiagate hero, who now claims the tapes were doctored and he is innocent. This is the same brazenness with which politicians hang on to office despite being tainted with acts of corruption. If I have consistently maintained that a corrupt media is more dangerous to democracy than corrupt politicians then the media doesnâ€™t stop providing more evidence to that belief.

Most Indian businesses are family-run and owned. But it is a common practice among many corporate entities to not employ two or more members from the same family, at least not in the same department. There is no particular reason behind this practice except for the belief that all the acts of the members may not be free from prejudice if they were from the same family. And what if your spouse also happens to be your boss in a news media enterprise? It then makes it all the more likely that sometimes even trash can be passed off as journalism. In all the posts on this site I have never once referred to Sagarika Ghose as the wife of Rajdeep Sardesai. I have always referred to her as the deputy editor. However, now I do believe the deputy editor must go. That any other Managing Editor in the seat of Rajdeep Sardesai would not tolerate the outright rubbish that Sagarika churns out so frequently. The latest one really has to be the last straw. That Rajdeep himself has a lot to answer for is another story.

Media is not a private body as the Editors Guild would have the Standing committee on Lokpal believe. The power to influence people, opinions and even elections is not in the private domain. There is a strange streak in Sagarika Ghose that leads her to believe that people are idiots and can be fooled all the time. That there are ordinary people and there are elites and she stands independently as an observer. Her boss should have repeatedly told her that she was part of the elite. On 9th November on her programme â€˜Face the nationâ€™ Sagarika ran the debate â€œSri Sri on 4 day yatra in UP: should spiritual leaders take part in anti-corruption campaigns? FTN 10pmâ€. There were a few usual panellists along with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Except, SriSri wasnâ€™t there!

First of all, the clear answer to SGâ€™s question is anybody in this country is free to run a campaign against corruption at any place and at any time of his or her choice. Sagarika doesnâ€™t have any moral business to question the rights of SriSri. This countryâ€™s values have been built on the spiritual cleanliness which outsiders find easier to recognise than people like Sagarika. The right question would now be: Does Sagarika have any moral right to continue as a journalist?

Sagarika Ghose conducted the debate as if SriSri were live on the programme and was responding to the comments made by other panellists. That wasnâ€™t all, when panellists made a comment she even turned to SriSri to seek his response. What was being used was footage from a previously recorded interview with SriSri and suitably edited to make it appear as if he was responding live. This is nothing short of blatant mischief and fraud on the viewers. This is something CNN-IBNâ€™s Cyrus Broacha does on his comedy show where the viewers are aware of the interviews being fake.

Some days back SG ran a debate on whether Justice Katju, the new PCI chairman, should apologise for calling journalists â€œuneducatedâ€. I hope she now realises what exactly Katju was referring to. Not done with that, she frequently passes judgements on judges of High courts and Supreme Court some of which may actually be an act of contempt. In a recent article, â€˜The Eliteâ€™s on trialâ€™, here is what she wrote:
â€œThe 2G trial too is one of Indiaâ€™s â€œmillion mutiniesâ€. The overthrow of bail jurisprudence, the CBIâ€™s failure to provide comprehensive evidence so far, the many weaknesses of the case beyond its rhetoric, have been highlighted by several legal experts. It is no longer even clear how much â€œlossâ€ there was to the exchequer, with the CAGâ€™s R1.76 lakh crore figure now being systematically questioned. Yet the 2G accused, before the trial, before proof of the money trail, appear to already have been declared guiltyâ€. This not only reflects her terrible lack of understanding of the law but it also appears the article was written without a thorough scrutiny of the judgement by Judge O.P.Saini which denied bail to Kanimozhi and others. She probably implies that Indians simply want to hang the rich regardless of evidence or sense of justice.

I have said often that itâ€™s not possible to hide in the tech-age. Faster than she could say SriSri people on Twitter quickly pointed out the recorded interview of SriSri being misused by Sagarika on her programme. She later tweeted that it was a bug and that FTN will carry a full apology to the viewers and to SriSri. I believe one can apologise for a mistake or an error. This was neither a mistake nor an error but wilful deception. The apology can pass but if Rajdeep Sardesai has any moral decency left in him he has to let his deputy editor go. Willingly perpetrating a fraud on the viewers is not a mistake that can be covered up by an apology. It is far too serious a crime. It is time for Rajdeep, the Managing Editor, to sack Sagarika.

Which media in the world is not prone to do all this? We curse the BBC, CNN, Fox. Some of our desi channels are nothing but news entertainment channels like India TV. News channels are not there to present news, facts and original stories but are in a TRP contest which then influences how much they charge for ads.

Every other day we have news channels coming out with viewership data esp after major events like elections or something. What does it say? They are in a business and they will do anything to promote it. Its not like they will just have a good product and let the product do the talking. Point to note is that all news channels are now led by the erstwhile team of NDTV. Now we know what kind of a "school" that was!!

Man this is a new low in India by the 'Secular Media' run by cryptos and funded for foreign religious organizations...these IBN and NDTV are run on such dubious investments, hence the result!!

BUT, faking SriSri's footage blew the lid off my head......this clearly indicates IBN will do anything to prove their competencies to their masters even if it means FOOLING the citizens of this country; even after 2G scam crypto Rajdeep Sradesai has not learnt his lesson, he continues to report every thing in 'Secular' fashion rather than in 'Objective' fashion........'Secular' Media is fast becoming dangerous day by day with their concoction of fake and dubious reporting by dubious characters themselves!

Seriously, what credibility can these shameless secular channels portray in front of gullible "Aam Adami". Shame!!

Let us be clear on one thing, No other media has done what she has done. Not even Burkha Dutt

Sagarika Ghose conducted the debate as if SriSri were live on the programme and was responding to the comments made by other panellists. That wasnâ€™t all, when panellists made a comment she even turned to SriSri to seek his response. What was being used was footage from a previously recorded interview with SriSri and suitably edited to make it appear as if he was responding live. This is nothing short of blatant mischief and fraud on the viewers.

If you look at it from business point of view, then the medias look neither paid nor are they "sickular". They are in business and business is like war. Anything is fair and anything goes. I have no doubt that if the BJP was in power, the media would have moved towards them. Power is a big thing. Meida houses know they can influence a lot of things and to stay in the game they have to suck up. End result is what matters and not the means.

Its all about business in the end. The reason why people feel that the media is paid by the the congress is because the India media "came of age" during this period. They just about took off in the early par of the last decade. They all got established when the congress was in power. If the BJP was in power, the media would have used them too to further their business. Mark my words, when the government changes in the center and the NDA comes to power.

I donâ€™t know if you watch Cyrus Broachaâ€™s weekly satirical show on CNN-IBN. Cyrus is a very funny guy but for me the highlight of the show is often the mock interview with a celebrity. The way it works is this. Cyrus (or his producers) take clips from a genuine interview with a celebrity and then splice in bogus questions that Cyrus asks.

For instance, if a celebrity cricketer is asked why there is such a fuss over the IPL and responds, â€œIt is all a question of moneyâ€, Cyrusâ€™s producers delete the question but keep the answer. Then, Cyrus asks a bogus question, say, something like â€œWhy is Sharad Pawar so fascinated by cricket?â€ The cricketer is then shown answering, â€œItâ€™s all a question of moneyâ€. (This is a hypothetical example to illustrate the point. As far as I know, no such question and answer session has taken place on Cyrusâ€™s show.)

For me, the most frightening aspect of the mock interview is how well it works. Only rarely does there seem to be a disconnect between the made-up questions and the answers.

There is a reason for this and it is one of the dirty secrets of Indian television.

The term â€˜sim-satâ€™ probably means nothing to most viewers but everybody in TV knows exactly what it involves. An anchor interviews a guest off camera, perhaps on a satellite link. But when it is time to go on air, the anchor will not show the interview as it was recorded. Instead, he or she will pretend that the guest is actually live on air. The questions will be asked again live and the old answers will be replayed. Often, there will be a super saying Live, which I guess, is half-true because the anchor is live even if the guest is not.

These days, anchors have got more ambitious. They splice in these pre-recorded interviews when live discussions are taking place. Assume that an anchor has interviewed, say, Shankar Menon before the show went on air. Menon has been asked whether talking to Pakistan is a good idea. He has responded that we have no choice but to talk, that we will focus on terror, etc.

A skillful anchor will steer the live discussion on to the subject of talks and will then say something like, â€œLet me bring in the National Security Advisor here. Mr Menon, you have heard our guests say that talking to Pakistan could be a mistake. Why do you think that we should talk?â€

And then, they will play Menonâ€™s pre-recorded answer.

Once you understand how the sim-sat works, many of TVâ€™s mysteries will be cleared up. How, for instance, do the same people manage to turn up on different channels simultaneously? Why is it that even when panelists ask pointed questions of each other, some of them are never answered? In our hypothetical example above, if a panelist were to say something like, â€œI know that the National Security Advisor is an American stooge who misleads the Prime Ministerâ€, you would expect the anchor to turn to Shankar Menon and ask him to defend himself. But in the case of a sim-sat, this is not possible. So, the allegation would probably go unanswered.

I pass no value judgements about the sim-sat phenomenon. As far as I know, every single television channel does it. It is part of the everyday routine of news television. In some cases, I am pretty sure that the anchors phrase their questions much more aggressively when they repeat them live to make themselves look good. That, too, is par for the course.

My experience of international TV is limited but I doubt if the BBC would do this. Nor do I think that sim-sats are common on American television.

So, why do we do it in India? Is there no alternative? And shouldnâ€™t there be a debate about the practice?

How do you show an International Celebrity in poor light. Why dont we air a fabricated cut-and-paste type panel discussion!!! A serious ethical issue is that the defendant does not have any chance to defend themselves against any of the allegations levelled against them. This is a clear attempt to malign the image of a responsible citizen.

This is exactly what Ms. Sagarika Ghose and the CNN-IBN crew did to Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, a leading light in the fight against corruption!

What was a one-on-one interview at around 3 PM was aired on the same day at 10 PM as a live panel discussion!!!

Ms. Ghose acted as if Sri Sri was on the line and was speaking to her. She shamelessly even posed questions to him!! A close look at the video shows that he was actually not wording any of the statements correctly. Hence the video was made at another time and the interview taken at another!!

To think that the public or the rival networks are foolish and will not hit out at this cut and paste job shows the arrogance and naivette of the broadcasters. To think that Sri Sri's followers will not catch on to it is also foolish.

Lets hope that Ms. Ghose and the CNN-IBN crew pay the cost of this misdemeanour. CNN-IBN has opened itself to law suits that may run into multi-million dollar damages for such a blatant abuse of power just in case Sri Sri's office decides so!!

Will the channel axe her or will it let her hang around like Ms. Barkha Dutt just to resurrect her another day? A small prize for their loyalty and political clout!

This is totally unethical and unacceptable. She should face the consequence for her conspiracy.

Common Yusuf, There is always a limitation. You can have different opinion and views but You can't make fraud videos which any one can tell. She is congress media spokesperson but the above video is clear cheating. It's not about pro congress stand but humiliating a very respected person by making fake video.

That you and i are discussing this in a forum, plus thousands of tweets etc means mission successful for SG. Controversy=publicity. Like i said everything goes in the days of cut throat competition. First there were "stings" now there will be such fakes. IBN the "fakesetter"!!!